http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1052970 http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1052970#c4 --- Comment #4 from Frank Sundermeyer <fs@suse.com> --- I am not happy with replacing aspell by hunspell as suggested in FATE #323578. aspell has much better support for HTML, XML, and TeX. Both spell checkers support these formats (by ignoring commands and tags), but aspell allows to specify certain tags/commands for TeX, XML and HTML that get checked. With this you can, for example, check alt-Tags in HTML. Aspell also lets you create your own filters, or, for HTML/XML lets you explicitly specify which tags to check and which ones to ignore. Hunspell, for example, offers no way to ignore preformatted text (such as program listings or command output) in spell checks. aspell does. As for DAPS, the usage of aspell is hardcoded (DAPS is a tool to process DocBook XML). Dropping aspell would not only mean that I would have to change DAPS' spell-checking code, it would also mean that DAPS will loose functionality for reasons mentioned above. I strongly suggest to keep aspell. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.